Me: Do you agree 2=2 and 3=3 (unless something is added)TB: No, 2=2 and 3=3 only when nothing has been added to them.Me: So 2+3=5 Any issue with any of these facts?TB: Yes, I have an issue with using a calculator for theoretical observations rather than actual observations.Me: So you don't agree? We can use different numbers? Would you like to pick the numbers?TB: If you want to add 2 and 3 go ahead. We only add our own numbers.Me: If you disagree just say so or agree and we can move on? How about 1+1=2? Can you get on board with that?TB: I don't know if 1+1=2. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.Me and Others: WTF? We put in the only effort? You don't except anything? What do you want?TB: Spanish explorers know about numbers! Where's the evidence!?Me and Others: We will get a camera and live stream people taking 2 apples and putting them with 3 apples and show you it's 5 apples, or anything YOU want.TB: I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed.Me and Others: You can literally just add it on your hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!TB: When you guys have any sort of evidence you can send me a PM. I am tired of responding to excuses and attempts at avoidence. <-(His misspelling not mine)

Is he at least not American? Please, at least that.

Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

You round earthers simply don't understand why all of your round earth evidence is wrong. At the heart of the issue is the fact that every single scientific study verifying a round earth was manufactured by a cabal of powerful people that proliferate this lie in order to benefit from it.

Some of the items on the list have been mentioned by folks in this thread before, but I am relisting it for clarity:

1. NASA is an organization that promotes the round earth myth.

2. The US government is, either in on it, or is deluded by the "expert" claims of the agencies it relies on for such information.

3. Other governments around the world are also, either in on it, or are in conspiracy for themselves in order to benefit from the hoax (here is a list of some of the space agencies that continue to reap the rewards from a round earth myth and continue to proliferate the lie: BSA, ACAE, CIDA-E, AEM, ASAL, AP-MCSTA, ARPSAF, APSCO, ALR, AMAKA, NSSA, BIRA, ABAE, AEB, UKS, ABE, SRI-BAS, CSA, CNSA, CCE, CRISP, CSIRO, CCSDS, COSPAR, DRC, DRKI, ESA, GISTDA, DLR, HSO, ISRO, ISARS, INTA, ISA, JAXA, SRI, NZSA, KCST, NADA, LSA, ANGKASA, NASA, NARSS, CNES, CONIDA, CNIE).

4. Although there is still much debate amongst the flat earth luminaries, the general consensus is that the edges of our flat earth are surrounded by an ice wall. The multitude of aviation and maritime organizations out there, are forced to use navigation technologies that the round earth cabal makes for them, so no plane or sea-faring craft has ever been able to make contact or breach the edge of our earth. The technology, these industries have, simply simulates a round earth through a series of navigational tricks.

5. Members of the round earth conspiracy have infiltrated every scientific and technological field, and are working around the clock to obfuscate the flat earth fact by steering their respective fields in a direction that retains the wool over the eyes of the general populace.

6. The overwhelming majority of science that supports a round earth is manufactured to conceal and obfuscate the experimental data in a manner that allows the agents of the round earth cabal to draw fraudulent conclusions in support of the myth.

7. The few percent of scientific research that has not been conducted by agents of the round earth cabal, overwhelmingly supports a flat earth, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong.

In Conclusion:

As you can see, when you consider the seven facts that I have laid out for you above, you are forced to face the immutable truth - the earth is flat! If, for some reason, you are not convinced, please list any scientific research you would like, and I will be happy to tell you whether or not it is simply wrong or, alternatively, how it supports a flat earth, instead.

I hope everybody reading this understands, that even though practically the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead, the Flat Earth Cabal has existed for hundreds of years and employs countless thousands of co-conspirators within its ranks, while never having to cover up even a single catastrophic event that would shed light on its machinations.

The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause.

What in gods name are you talking about? "Sun doing something specific at the equator"? "catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made"?

"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.

So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information. This is a very strange position to assume.

We live in an age where instant communications are available all around the world...heck you can even what online cameras in different places.

So rather than looking for some old books in a museum someplace - why not instead go somewhere online like:

So - if I want to know whether the sun has risen in (say) Australia - there are about 45 live-feed cameras to choose from - and I'm fairly sure we could figure out the sunrise time by simply watching a few of those cameras at the appropriate time.

We can do this for about 100 different cities around the world - and thereby know (to within reasonable precision) when the sun rose in those cities.

Mr Bishop will now (presumably) find some exceedingly weak reasoning about why this won't work...perhaps he'll blame the transfer time over the Internet - ah - but I have a tool called "ping" which will measure that time quite accurately. Perhaps he'll accuse the webcam operators of introducing delays of tens of minutes to throw off our results - but this requires another HUGE jump in the number of conspirators involved.

We could even eliminate that issue by asking for volunteers in different countries to sign into a group chat on Skype or Google+ so we could interact with them and thereby verify that there are no significant delays (at least not beyond a second or two) in their observations. We could verify that their video feeds are not being faked by asking them to do things like point the camera at today's newspaper or something.

In the modern world, this data is RIDICULOUSLY easy to collect.

But Mr Bishop wants 400 year old writings in Spanish - because he knows that this information is effectively unobtainable.

So...how about it Mr Bishop? Are you up for me to find people living in several different countries and have them show you when the sun rises? Will you accept the evidence of this?

No? Somehow I didn't think so.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Dismiss any evidence that doesn't suit you. Bah!

The video feeds from webcams can be faked - with CGI, or prerecorded acting, footage from somewhere else elaborately decorated to appear somewhere else, time-dalayed, etc.

But the unsupported, unreferenced arrogant ramblings of a snake oil salesman about steam from fires supporting the world's oceans - now THAT'S something that could never be faked.

You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.

Tell you what Tom. I'll stand behind your rebuke of ronniereagan, if you stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed. Starting with, a map that you are willing to say, "this is the one - go ahead and challenge it". Or anything specific, referenced, verifiable, and repeatable. And that isn't a reference to writings about steam holding up the oceans. Hearsay and fantasy is not evidence.

You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.

Tell you what Tom. I'll stand behind your rebuke of ronniereagan, if you stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed. Starting with, a map that you are willing to say, "this is the one - go ahead and challenge it". Or anything specific, referenced, verifiable, and repeatable. And that isn't a reference to writings about steam holding up the oceans. Hearsay and fantasy is not evidence.

We have made no claims for what will happen to the sun at the date and location claimed in this thread. That was not our claim, that was a claim made by you roundies. Put up or shut up.

Wow, I didn't realize the comment about whining was directed towards my bullet-proof argument. I wasn't aware because nobody's comments appeared to come off as them whining.

The fact of the matter still stands: round Earth proponents will never succeed in proving a flat Earth member wrong, because a flat Earth member can't even conceive of an experiment, real or imaginary, that would somehow prove them wrong.

I will ask you this, Tom - in all of your time posting on this site, have you ever managed to convert a non-believer? Has somebody who was of sound logic (at least in their opinion), come up to make a round earth argument, at the end of which, their reaction was "oh my god, I can't believe I fell for this round earth nonsense!"

You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.

Tell you what Tom. I'll stand behind your rebuke of ronniereagan, if you stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed. Starting with, a map that you are willing to say, "this is the one - go ahead and challenge it". Or anything specific, referenced, verifiable, and repeatable. And that isn't a reference to writings about steam holding up the oceans. Hearsay and fantasy is not evidence.

We have made no claims for what will happen to the sun at the date and location claimed in this thread. That was not our claim, that was a claim made by you roundies. Put up or shut up.

Bold words, from a man stuck inside behind a computer for ten years.

You often make passing (often incoherent) references or allusions to the Scientific Method. (And seem to often betray your own beloved Zetetic Method.) So, how about we follow the long-established and observed conventions of science. The null hypothesis is the the prevailing, most most widely accepted hypothesis among the scientific community. The one that requires the least pretzel-twisting of logic and ad-hoc explanations. The one with the fewest internal inconsistencies. The one with the most concrete and readily available evidence (e.g. how to freaking fly from LAX to SYD), with high-precision maps readily available, testable, and disprovable.

The conjecture requiring the most ad-hoc, free-wheeling, mutually exclusive assertions to support, the one that can't even produce a freaking map to test - is not the null hypothesis.

I'm sure you'll transparently disagree, but the burden of proof is clearly on you.

Put up or shut up.

Starting with a map that you are willing to stand behind, and have empirically verified and picked apart.

You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.

You will not get a response unless you have something meaningful to contribute. Stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed.

Tell you what Tom. I'll stand behind your rebuke of ronniereagan, if you stop whining and provide evidence for the topic being discussed. Starting with, a map that you are willing to say, "this is the one - go ahead and challenge it". Or anything specific, referenced, verifiable, and repeatable. And that isn't a reference to writings about steam holding up the oceans. Hearsay and fantasy is not evidence.

We have made no claims for what will happen to the sun at the date and location claimed in this thread. That was not our claim, that was a claim made by you roundies. Put up or shut up.

Bold words, from a man stuck inside behind a computer for ten years.

You often make passing (often incoherent) references or allusions to the Scientific Method. (And seem to often betray your own beloved Zetetic Method.) So, how about we follow the long-established and observed conventions of science. The null hypothesis is the the prevailing, most most widely accepted hypothesis among the scientific community. The one that requires the least pretzel-twisting of logic and ad-hoc explanations. The one with the fewest internal inconsistencies. The one with the most concrete and readily available evidence (e.g. how to freaking fly from LAX to SYD), with high-precision maps readily available, testable, and disprovable.

The conjecture requiring the most ad-hoc, free-wheeling, mutually exclusive assertions to support, the one that can't even produce a freaking map to test - is not the null hypothesis.

I'm sure you'll transparently disagree, but the burden of proof is clearly on you.

Put up or shut up.

Starting with a map that you are willing to stand behind, and have empirically verified and picked apart.

The map / LAX to SYD flight time is a good route, Joe. Except what you don't know is that it takes the same exact time to fly, because it's the same exact route, because the earth is flat. It just takes more time to fly East from LAX, because the plane ends up circling at the destination, until the appropriate distance to support the round Earth hoax is flown.

What you posted is not a "fact". A position from a sun calculator is not a "fact". That's called a prediction. There are no factual observations involved there. How old are you?

Hence the offer to let you pick the day or pick a day that already happened or pick no day and just go with what everyone knows, the sun rises in the east.I'd tell you my birthday, but then you have to use a calculator to find out how old I am.

Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

The map / LAX to SYD flight time is a good route, Joe. Except what you don't know is that it takes the same exact time to fly, because it's the same exact route, because the earth is flat. It just takes more time to fly East from LAX, because the plane ends up circling at the destination, until the appropriate distance to support the round Earth hoax is flown.

I got this one, Tom! You're not the only man that can make Kool Aid.

Good point, I didn't think of that. And the planes are secretly hyper-supersonic, and have huge extra gas tanks, so that they can take a circuitous all-water route to Sydney in the same amount of time what we think a "normal" plane would do on a round Earth. Curse you global conspiracy!

You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

So why, then, should we accept the sun calculators as unquestionable? Claims were made in this thread, and they need to be supported with evidence. The creator of this thread is maintaining that he has posted "facts" with his sun calculator predictions and that everyone reading should accept it without question. If you guys predict that the sun will appear at a particular spot at a certain date and location, then we expect that you will be able to support your prediction. It is not automatically true.

I for one, would absolutely love to see your map. I however would (edit - that should be wouldn't - bad error, sorry) just say it’s fake. I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on. Do you guys seriously not even have a map?I did call the original sunrise time’s facts. So what? I immediately offered multiple other options, anything you could agree to just to get to the simple… wait for it…. Fact that the sun rises in the east. Dun dun dunnnnnnnn!!!!!!Just out of curiosity, how many times does a utterly simple calculator have to predict the sunrise and sunset (not to mention you can set it to times in the past) before it’s excepted? Why haven’t you made one based on your theories yet? Give the formula and I program it for you.

« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 06:39:52 PM by Merkava »

Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.

How would you go about doing that?

Very glad you asked. Nice to meet you.Assuming it would be something resembling an azimuthal equidistant projection?Just use lat and long to figure out how far 2 places south of the equator should be away from each other and see if they are. Unfortunately an explanation of why the sun isn't where said azimuthal equidistant projection map would seem to imply it should be, was not forthcoming. That seems the easiest thing to check without having to go anywhere but outside, albeit very early.

Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?